Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[tomBitonti]

That notice is at the top of SRD 5.1 though.

Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD5”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.

A question: Is WotC a Contributor?

I’ve been taking been taking this as a given, but I can’t find a clear statement anywhere that they have “Contributed” OGC. They have made the SRD available as OGC but not by “contributing“ it through The OGL. They did so under the original “top level” OGL.

That seems to make OGC of two types: OGC as made available by WotC through the OGL, and additional OGC as contributed through the OGL.

Then the original OGC never gets swept up in clauses 2-4. Licenses which are granted by the OGL are only to additional OGC as contributed through the OGL.

That is to say, there is the original OGC, which is only available through the OGL, and then there is Contributed OGC, which is available through sub-licenses per sections 2-4.

To say, I don’t prefer reaching this interpretation. However, it does seem to most cleanly fit.

TomB

 

[gban007]

No, the material as presented in the PHB, MM, and DMG is not OGC. You can't source it from there. It can only be sourced from the SRD.

But with this bit bolded earlier:
You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use.
Given that the PHB contains content that is in the SRD, doesn't that mean that triggers this piece by the logic FrogReaver is outlining? If WOTC is somehow making itself a licensee to the OGL, then surely any time that WOTC uses OGC, including SRD content, it should publish the notice? Otherwise it isn't affixing it to any OGC it is using.
Instead it has only published the notice when using content from other third parties, suggesting it isn't licensing from itself.

 

[Hussar]

That is a good point. Anyone else who uses anything from the srd MUST include an Ogl in their product. But WotC doesn’t.

 

[pemerton]

But, as a practical matter, if it's not enforced, who cares?

If I notice that Bob's Book is in breach, and I email Bob about it, then what? Unless WotC decides to step in and get involved, nothing is going to happen.

Normally, if you actually care, you'd also email the upstream licensor, so that they can then take whatever action they wish to take.

 

[Maxperson]

So WOTC includes the notice in the SRD 5.1, so they are abiding by section 2. Right?

I'd prefer we stick to 1 issue at a time, instead of throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.

Of course they don't. You were correct that other people have to use the license and SRD. WotC does not, or else they would be including the language that doesn't exist in their books.

 

[pemerton]

But with this bit bolded earlier:
You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use.
Given that the PHB contains content that is in the SRD, doesn't that mean that triggers this piece by the logic FrogReaver is outlining? If WOTC is somehow making itself a licensee to the OGL, then surely any time that WOTC uses OGC, including SRD content, it should publish the notice? Otherwise it isn't affixing it to any OGC it is using.
Instead it has only published the notice when using content from other third parties, suggesting it isn't licensing from itself.

The bolded bit is not a statute. It only has legal force as a term of a contract. WotC is not contracting with itself. And when it licenses its OGC to other parties, its' contractual obligation is to provide the licence in respect of the content it has flagged as OGC.

WotC does not owe anyone obligations, flowing from the OGL, in relation to how it presents its copyrighted works in the PHB etc.

 

[gban007]

ise it isn't affixing it to any OGC it is using.

The bolded bit is not a statute. It only has legal force as a term of a contract. WotC is not contracting with itself. And when it licenses its OGC to other parties, its' contractual obligation is to provide the licence in respect of the content it has flagged as OGC.

WotC does not owe anyone obligations, flowing from the OGL, in relation to how it presents its copyrighted works in the PHB etc.

I agree , I just thought that the absence of this statement in the PHB etc would counter what FrogReaver was asserting.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

That is a good point. Anyone else who uses anything from the srd MUST include an Ogl in their product. But WotC doesn’t.

Sure, but isn't this is the entire point? If I go into a studio tomorrow and, for my sins, record "Maybe I'm Amazed," I'll owe Paul McCartney something like $0.10 per copy sold (so approximately $0.10 total, but probably less, as even Mrs. Citizen Mane won't buy a copy of that crap). If Paul McCartney goes into the studio and records it again tomorrow, he doesn't have to pay himself the compulsory licensing costs and can do basically whatever he wants with it. It's his IP and, within the law, he's free to exploit it in ways that other people cannot. This is where WotC is with the PHB — they've licensed a distilled version of it as OGC for others to use, but they're free to go out and do whatever they want with it despite that.

 

[Hussar]

Normally, if you actually care, you'd also email the upstream licensor, so that they can then take whatever action they wish to take.

My point being though it is the upstream licensor that has to take action.

So who is the upstream licensor I would report WotC’s broken OGL material to?

 

[Enrahim2]

My point being though it is the upstream licensor that has to take action.

Wait a second. Do this mean that if wizards go out of business without managing to sell off the rights to the SRD content, I can safely use the srd ogcs forever as noone can contest my use of the ogl1.0a?